I like to think of myself as an evolutionist and ask myself the question, what is my goal as an evolutionist? The answer would have to be, the advancement of the understanding of evolution and to widen the catalogue of species of animals that have lived. I have no desire to disprove religion or belittle people of faith. If creationists choose to beleive that is their right, but it should be made clear that it is a BELIEF, a way of coping with a purposeless life in a random universe.

It is something to get your head around if you've been doctrinated at an early age. I grew up in a semi Christian/Atheist household and went to a Church of England primary school. We had a prayer in the morning assembly and had R.E. like any other state school. But there was no pressure to believe, we were taught evolution as well. As I got older and was educated enough to read what I liked I began to learn more and came to realise by myself that the most logical answer to where we came from was evolution. I really cannot see how the fundamentalists can be so blinkered to reams of evidence which back up the theories that have come to be known as science.

If we pride ourselves on logic and reason then God has no place in the universe. We should give ourselves credit for evolving into animals with the ability to develop morals and compassion and love.

gansao and freedom get in here, I found Bigfoot!

Sasquatch in eastern England, never saw that coming!

Ha Ha yes you found me, nice to me you folks

Originally Posted by Squatch

It is something to get your head around if you've been doctrinated at an early age. I grew up in a semi Christian/Atheist household and went to a Church of England primary school. We had a prayer in the morning assembly and had R.E. like any other state school. But there was no pressure to believe, we were taught evolution as well. As I got older and was educated enough to read what I liked I began to learn more and came to realise by myself that the most logical answer to where we came from was evolution. I really cannot see how the fundamentalists can be so blinkered to reams of evidence which back up the theories that have come to be known as science.

If we pride ourselves on logic and reason then God has no place in the universe. We should give ourselves credit for evolving into animals with the ability to develop morals and compassion and love.

There's plenty of evolutionists who believe in God and or Jesus Christ.

That being said, please identify for us which specific hominid you say is man's immediate, direct-line ancestor, and provide the conclusive DNA evidence to back up your pick.

Originally Posted by Accipiter

gansao and freedom get in here, I found Bigfoot!

According to you, if its made from atoms it must be a computer too lol

Originally Posted by gansao

According to you, if its made from atoms it must be a computer too lol

The universe is made of information, it's already a computer.

Digital physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Easyrider

There's plenty of evolutionists who believe in God and or Jesus Christ.

That being said, please identify for us which specific hominid you say is man's immediate, direct-line ancestor, and provide the conclusive DNA evidence to back up your pick.

Yes there are plenty of evolutionists who have faith in God and or Jesus, I'm not offended by that. Spiritual solace can come from a belief in any deity you like. Maybe it is good for people psychologically to believe in some form of higher power. I don't see why that belief negates the validity of evolution as the mechanism responsible for our existence.

As for identifying the hominid species which might be our direct forebear, thats not possible to answer at this point in time. For a couple of reasons

1) For all we know two species may have interbred ie Neanderthal and Homo Habilis so we would have two direct line ancestors

2) We most certainly have not discovered every species of hominid that has ever lived.

Originally Posted by Accipiter

The universe is made of information, it's already a computer.

Digital physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lol.You must be a virus then




In physics and cosmology, digital physics is a collection of theoretical perspectives based on the premise that the universe is, at heart, describable by information, and is therefore computable.
Complete BS in other words.

No better than.Gaia hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This XXXX is from and for bedwetters like Accipter who laugh at religion but want it really.
I suspect that they reject the omnipresent God in favour of some other quasi scientific replacement because an omnipresent God would observe their attachment to onanism and would it be less judgmental too .

Originally Posted by Squatch

Yes there are plenty of evolutionists who have faith in God and or Jesus, I'm not offended by that. Spiritual solace can come from a belief in any deity you like. Maybe it is good for people psychologically to believe in some form of higher power. I don't see why that belief negates the validity of evolution as the mechanism responsible for our existence.

As for identifying the hominid species which might be our direct forebear, thats not possible to answer at this point in time. For a couple of reasons

1) For all we know two species may have interbred ie Neanderthal and Homo Habilis so we would have two direct line ancestors

2) We most certainly have not discovered every species of hominid that has ever lived.

There's a whole bunch of "missing links" in evolution, and there's nothing in the Bible that prohibits it that I can see.

But evolution (godless) must rely on its own miracles - the mathematically implausible occurrence of abiogenesis. Plus a whole universe suddenly appearing out of nowhere. That's why I say evolutionists have a much greater faith than a religious creationist could possibly muster.

Originally Posted by gansao

Lol.You must be a virus then




In physics and cosmology, digital physics is a collection of theoretical perspectives based on the premise that the universe is, at heart, describable by information, and is therefore computable.
Complete BS in other words.

No better than.Gaia hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This XXXX is from and for bedwetters like Accipter who laugh at religion but want it really.
I suspect that they reject the omnipresent God in favour of some other quasi scientific replacement because an omnipresent God would observe their attachment to onanism and would it be less judgmental too .

Your post does not make sense.

Theoretical perspectives and premise are words that you will find in every branch of science.

I get the feeling that you did not read the entire page.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

There's a whole bunch of "missing links" in evolution, and there's nothing in the Bible that prohibits it that I can see.

But evolution (godless) must rely on its own miracles - the mathematically implausible occurrence of abiogenesis. Plus a whole universe suddenly appearing out of nowhere. That's why I say evolutionists have a much greater faith than a religious creationist could possibly muster.

What miracle does an evolutionist need to accept? Yes it is mathematically implausable for abiogenesis to occur but not impossible. When you look at the fact that the planet is in the right place for liquid water. Couple that with the fact that we have a magnetic field to divert dangerous solar activity. Many many things are in place to make abiogenesis on this planet inevitable. There is no need for these conditions to have been engineered. The parameters for life to exist widen every time we discover a new extremophile.

Originally Posted by Squatch

What miracle does an evolutionist need to accept? Yes it is mathematically implausable for abiogenesis to occur but not impossible. When you look at the fact that the planet is in the right place for liquid water. Couple that with the fact that we have a magnetic field to divert dangerous solar activity. Many many things are in place to make abiogenesis on this planet inevitable. There is no need for these conditions to have been engineered. The parameters for life to exist widen every time we discover a new extremophile.

That is certainly chicken out of the egg, life adapts and so you find it many places survivng many things; then you conclude that the conditions favorable to life are similarly diverse and ubiquitous.

Before life there was no adaptation, you have no idea whether the first cells were extremophiles or not.

Secondly, how do you get from mathematically implausible to inevitable? A fully analysis of the odds would include factoring trials (= trials/time * time)

What I meant was that abiogenesis in itself is highly improbable. When you look in the right place under the right conditons it becomes inevitable